Beginning with comparisons, we realise that both journals are a collection of articles that touch on politics and how culture has shaped democracy in various nations. When it comes to defining the milestones that colonial rule has moved from, the journals touch on feminism. This is most probably because of the fact that women are the main beneficiaries of colonial deliverance. They have always been a perfect example of how much fruit was yielded by those who fought for independence. The journals touch on critical areas where the events of civil wars and industrial revolution exposed the strength of women (Manalansan 500). This marked to be a turning point that has since seen women take up leadership positions as well as participate in many other economic activities. The journals give a record of substantial achievements made by women during and after colonial rule.
There are also various contrasting features especially on the times when the issues were addressed. The politics of culture in the shadow capital addresses the events of post-colonialism. This was the period immediately after the colonial rule and most of the nations were still recovering from the effects of colonial rule. It was a tough season where they had to make and implement new rules as well as recover what had been lost during the wars. The postcolonial study reader on the other hand addresses the issues of neo-colonial capitalism. This was a period when most of the nations had gained full governance, adjusted to self-rule and were now living under their own rule (Spivak 25). This was however not without challenges as the people had also to fight to ensure they are included in the overall decision making of the country. This can be defined as a period of realisation and gaining internal democracy.
Works cited
Manalansan, IV, Martin. “In the Shadows of Stonewall: Examining Gay Transnational Politics and the Diasporic Dilemma” in The Politics of Culture in the Shadow of Capital, eds., Lisa Lowe and David Lloyd, pp.485-505.
Spivak, Gayatri. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Bill Ashcroft, et. al. eds., The Postcolonial Studies Reader (New York: Routledge, 1995): 24-28.
